Filed: Sep. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 01, 2017
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 32; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 1, 2017. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees (Dkt. No. 28; Motion) be granted, in part, and denied, in part. See Report at 2, 15-16. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. T
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 32; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 1, 2017. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees (Dkt. No. 28; Motion) be granted, in part, and denied, in part. See Report at 2, 15-16. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. Th..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 32; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 1, 2017. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees (Dkt. No. 28; Motion) be granted, in part, and denied, in part. See Report at 2, 15-16. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.1 Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 32) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees (Dkt. No. 28) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
3. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff is awarded $11,605.00 in attorney and paralegal fees and $38,839.39 in costs2 and litigation expenses.
4. The Court reserves ruling on the award of any additional fees and/or costs incurred through the Confirmation of the Sale of M/Y Cloud Ten.
5. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter an AMENDED JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff Millennial Capital Management, LLC, and against Defendants M/Y Cloud Ten, a 2002 123' Nichols Brothers SWATH Vessel, Official No. 1130416, her engines, apparel, tackle, boats, appurtenances, etc., in rem, and Atlantic Cloud Cruise Lines, LLC, in personam, for $11,605.00 in attorney and paralegal fees, and $38,839.39 in costs and litigation expenses. The amended judgment shall state that the Court reserves ruling on the award of any additional fees and/or costs incurred through the confirmation of the sale of M/Y Cloud Ten.
DONE and ORDERED.
